Picture two Cedar Falls houses next to each other, both with gravel driveways...one happens to be a rental property. A 2015 city ordinance forces the rental owner to spend thousands to pave over the existing driveway - while allowing the owner-occupied house to remain unchanged.
I've spent the past few weeks studying the big changes to our rental code, which City Council approved in 2015. While I'm generally supportive of the changes, I'm concerned about the fairness of one of the new ordinances -- the mandate that all rental property owners pave their parking areas and driveways, regardless of how long ago the property was built. Here's the ordinance:
Sec. 14-149. - Requirement that parking lots and parking areas be hard-surfaced.
The owner of each property upon which any residential rental dwelling unit or units is or are located shall have all driveways, parking lots, parking stalls or other parking areas serving said property hard-surfaced. For purposes of this section, hard surface means paving, as defined in section 23-157 of article VI, chapter 23, of this Code. Any such areas which are not hard-surfaced on the date of adoption of this section must be brought into compliance with this requirement by no later than three years following the date of the first minimum rental housing code inspection of any dwelling unit on the property that occurs following the date of adoption of this section. (Ord. No. 2836, § 8, 2-16-15)
A Little Background on the Changes
The 2015 changes to the rental code in Cedar Falls attempt to strike a workable balance between:
- Investment Property Owners seeking to capitalize on their home investment through renting out of the property and minimal overhead;
- Owner-Occupied Homeowners seeking to preserving neighborhood character, quality of life, and property values (particularly in Cedar Falls's original neighborhoods);
- Renters seeking affordable rents and an adequate standard of living in line with the rent level they're willing to pay.
These changes required months of discussion, revision and public comment, and largely dealt with changes in occupancy limits and parking requirements; they were approved on February 16, 2015.
Grandfathering and What it Means Here
All residential buildings are required to have a paved driveway, according to Section 29.114(g). A short drive around town will show you that lots of residential buildings (homes, apartments, etc.) have gravel (or even dirt) driveway...so what gives? It's the "grandfathering" exception (in legalspeak, a legal nonconforming use). If your home or apartment building was constructed before the early 1970s (when City Council passed the residential paving requirement), and if you've not changed your driveway or parking area at all, then you're "grandfathered in" and don't have to spend the money to upgrade to concrete.
Why You Should Care
Sec.14-149 removes the 'grandfathering' protection from rental properties. I don't question the legality of the ordinance, but I do have great concerns about what this means for property rights for all of us. I'm not against placing mandates on rental properties....far from it. Section 14 of the city code protects renters through common sense property mandates like fire extinguishers, working bathrooms, pest control, and proper drainage. But how does a paved parking area make the renters more safe than a gravel parking area would? If city can’t make a valid public health, safety, or well-being claim for paved parking (like it easily can for pest control, drainage and fire protection), then the mandate to pave pre-1970's properties shouldn’t exist; 'grandfathering' should prevail here.
What to Do About it?
I believe we need a public discussion of Section 14-149 to determine the future of this ordinance. Perhaps some additional information will come to light would explain why this ordinance is indeed fair...but if it isn’t, I believe the only appropriate course of action would be repeal it. In its place, we could then explore ways to ensure that both gravel and paved driveways are maintained in a way consistent with the city’s responsibility to promote the health, safety and welfare of all residents through adequate parking surfaces. What matters most is we’ll do it fairly and equitably for all residents.
I'd Love to Hear Your Take on This
I've done my best to look into this issue to see if it deserves a public airing, and my sense is that it does. But what information have I missed, or what perspective do I need to hear? Let me know by e-mail (rgreencf@gmail.com) or comment on my Facebook wall...or whatever way works best for you. Thanks for reading all the way through!